Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Wolf

BigNorseWolf's page

RPG Superstar 7 Season Dedicated Voter. FullStarFullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 25,356 posts (26,473 including aliases). 16 reviews. 4 lists. No wishlists. 28 Pathfinder Society characters. 4 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 25,356 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge ****

an entire party of vigilantes
a social identity
the red raven
a candle
zombie powered rickshaw
half of an adamantine greatsword
clear spindle ioun stone
a paladins detect evil
overwhelming evil
troll autoharuspicy
a murder of tengu

Shadow Lodge

Was it me or was coulson a lil quick to put someone in a murdervest instead of taking the 5 minutes it wouldhave taken for Fitzsimmons to make an icer vest?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
Small "r" redemption, not the divine kind. Like the kind that gets you double money for your empties in Michigan.

Used glass bottles resent the comparison to theon greyjoy.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Black:

Caldey Cayden went sober after seeing_____
_______ was the only thing the shadow lodge body recovery team found
_____ was written on the birthday cake.

White:

A message board clarification
an FAQ
rules as intented
rules as written
RAW steak and eggs
a yellow tengu
a masterwork diplomacy tool
a six tailed kitsune
a disney character knock off
an x men character knock off
someone elses intellectual property
a heist mission
a breath of life scroll
a potion of fly
a potion sponge
a four pound brick of pesh
Flayleaf
a pot zombie
a pot zombie swarm
candiru
table variance
a rules lawyer
a short rules lawyer
a short rules layer eating doughnut holes

Shadow Lodge

M Tall dwarf Level 3 druid

That MIGHT be a legal charge lane. If the DM squints. And pays attention to this doughnut dangling on a string...

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
trollbill wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The Fourth Horseman wrote:

I've used scrolls of BoL and Raise Dead on other party members, and at the end, they'd buy one and give it to me.

It hadn't occurred to me that this was against the rules.

Oh well. No more buying scrolls of BoL.

and thats the downside to the current system, and its far bigger than any of the perceived issues

Sorry, but I do not consider having the table attitude change from a generosity based attitude to a more mercenary based attitude to be a lesser concern than getting my gold back for using a consumable on someone. I am not saying this will happen, but if it did, then the change would not be worth it, IMO.

Again, I am not totally against this. Just trepidatios about it.

Its not more mercenary based. It just makes the generosity reciprocal rather than one way.

Shadow Lodge ****

1. Make the change for scrolls of Breathe of Life only. Only the person who benefited from the scroll can replace that scroll for the person who provided it.

For

2. Make the change for scrolls of Breathe of Life only. The entire party can chip in to buy the replacement.

For

3. Make the change only for condition removal items (including death, so BOL still counts). Only the person who benefited can replace that item for the person who provided it.

For

4. Make the change only for condition removal items (including death, so BOL still counts). The entire party can chip in to buy the replacement.

For

5. Make the change for any single use, single target consumable item. Only the target of the consumable item can replace that item for the person who provided it.

Against.- Everyone should be able to chip in to help the dead guy.

6. Make the change for any single use, single target consumable item. The entire party can chip in to buy the replacement.

For

7. Make the change for any single use item, regardless of targets. The entire party can chip in to buy the replacement.

For

8. Make the change for any consumable item that goes from new to full expended during the adventure. This would have to be regardless of targets, since it could be used on more than one target, even if it's only one at a time. The entire party can chip in to buy the replacement.

For

9. Make the change for ANY consumable item, including those with multiple uses that aren't fully expended. I have no idea how this would work in practice without coins changing hands instead of just items, so this seems like the least realistic possibility.

Against. Charging for wand charges is too much math to be worth it.

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Fourth Horseman wrote:

I've used scrolls of BoL and Raise Dead on other party members, and at the end, they'd buy one and give it to me.

It hadn't occurred to me that this was against the rules.

Oh well. No more buying scrolls of BoL.

and thats the downside to the current system, and its far bigger than any of the perceived issues

Shadow Lodge ****

The general you can only sell things for what you paid for them" rule would cover that.

Shadow Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Fromper wrote:

It does seem like Ragoz and GM Lamplighter are arguing from a position of well coordinated players being able to game the system, and they're right.

The problem is that they're complaining about well coordinated players being able to game the new system without realizing that they can still game the current system the exact same way so they're arguing against the wrong variable.

And that gaming the system amounts to, gasp, cooperating.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nope. Couldn't have happened to a nicer reek. They may not have been Bran and Rikkon but they were still someone's 8 and 6 year olds.

Shadow Lodge ****

) To expand on the sub-tiers, is the eligible sub-tier is always based on average party level or each individual players? Is this the same with more than 4 players?

Average party level. Unless no one in the party is of the APL you wind up playing up to the individuals don't matter.

2) Am I required to distribute Chronicle Sheets to players at the end of each session, or only when there's boons or special items found in the adventure the player wants to purchase? (The session will be recorded online.)

Yes. Because while you have it recorded online, the next dm looking at their sheets doesn't have access to your recorded on line thingy. There is also information on the chronicle sheet that doesn't get recorded online, such as boons, experience, purchases, etc. Also, Most dms cannot access a players history online.

3) As a GM, I believe I can run any valid scenario any number of times, each time with a new group.

Eyup. You only get dm credit once though. I prefer to play a beatstick when i'm running a scenario i've read/dmed. Its much harder to metagame "Me kill stuff now yes? No? GOOD! " than a brilliant investigator who's supposed to put the pieces together.

Am I banned from playing in those scenarios as a player afterwards?

-Nope. You don't have to eat the scenarios like some previous campaigns made you. Just watch the metagaming when you do.

4) Can I play in a scenario multiple times if it's with different characters each time?

No. The once per scenario thing is for the player, not characters

The exception here is if you're making a legal table, or burn some DM stars.

5) Can I run combat and track hit points from an Excel spreadsheet as a GM, instead of using a Combat Pad or writing out the initiatives on the battle mat? Using the spreadsheet is what I'm familiar with in my home games.

Eyup. Battlemat, note pad, semaphore, notecards whatever works.

Shadow Lodge ****

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Do people that keep that as an insurance policy in their bags violate the rules on a regular basis on the off-chance they have someone that can cast it?

1,000 gp of weightless material that can be freely transfered back and forth between gems and coins? Yes. How else do you carry 1,000 gp?

Shadow Lodge ****

"Why is the command word to activate the scroll "Fruit of the loom?"

"... thats his underwear. Read the next thing up.

"Potion of cure moderate woun..

"Your other up.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

They start out as a legitimate contender in the semi annual paladins checkers tournament and go up from there.

Shadow Lodge ****

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Ragoz wrote:
The current system can change unwanted behavior for the better.

How?

If i burn a breath of life scroll on someone, they CANNOT pay me back for it. If they want to siphon off wealth, they have the ultimate excuse to do so, they literally CAN NOT pay me back for it.

I cannot track your thought process on what you're complaining about, at all. Jerry can do the exact same thing now, it will just might tom money. That will work only if the players know each other. If you have a con, it doesn't.

What the proposal does is make strangers play more like friends, which is a great thing in a society where a tenant is to cooperate.

Shadow Lodge ****

Stephen Ross wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
C) Like anything else, you can't sell something for more than you spent on it. The cost of an abudnantly ammunitioned ammo is 0, so you can't get more than zero back.

my point in example 2 c) is that others think he shot more than he did, Abundant Ammo uses 1 piece as the material component. Thus he can claim that the arrows are his (given to him for other arrows he shot).

It just gets messy.

Seriously? People finagling the system to transfer a copper piece, if that? THATS what people are worried about?

Shadow Lodge ****

C) Like anything else, you can't sell something for more than you spent on it. The cost of an abudnantly ammunitioned ammo is 0, so you can't get more than zero back.

Shadow Lodge ****

Jessex wrote:

After reading a good chunk of this I'm not even sure any more if what I've been doing is legal.

My -2 PC is a wizard who can cast stoneskin which has an expensive material component. I inform any martial character in my party that if they want it cast on them that they need to buy one or more doses of diamond dust. Is this the other player illegally reimbursing me for casting the spell?

They cannot buy diamond dust from you, but if they happen to be carrying their excess wealth in the form of diamond dust (as every adventurer should be) they can hand it to you.

Functionally the same thing.

Shadow Lodge ****

trollbill wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
.....how? How on earth can you game the system like that
I am not sure the problem is gaming the system so much as it might actually make players less prepared. As, instead of people buying consumables they might need, they instead save the money under the assumption that someone else spent their money on the necessary consumables so that they simply had to reimburse them if they turned out to be actually needed. If everyone thinks this way, then no one will have the necessary consumables.

The only way that would be true is if enough people were preparing to male up for their slack. This woild be a self correcting problem

Shadow Lodge ****

.....how? How on earth can you game the system like that

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Draws out the paizo development structure

Grumbles as an inter-dimensional rift is torn in the universe and swats at the Cthulhu tentacles emerging from it

That was the plan wasn't it?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the books, Qyburn (the same guy who made greggor) is also her master of spies. So thats one stop shopping right there.

Shadow Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If the best argument against a voluntary repay is not to argue against a voluntary repay, at all, I have to conclude that its a good idea.

Shadow Lodge

Lemmy wrote:
And so... In order to be subtle, she sends the over-7-feet-tall undead abomination to kill people?

If cersei were any good at subtle half the series wouldn't have happened. She barely bats an eye when he shows up covered in blood.

Quote:
And what... Did she predict that guy would be talking about her licking her lips?

I got the impression that wasn't the first time he told that story.

Quote:
How did he even hear that guy talking? He wasn't inside the tavern (or someone would have noticed the giant armored zombie sporting the lannister's guard uniform.

It was an outdoor tavern/beer garden and he wasn't exactly quiet.

Quote:
But unchanged or redeemed, Cersei never sent queen's guard to kill random peasants in taverns. She barely even thought ab

..before now. Now she does. So she's getting worse, more violent and more desperate.

Shadow Lodge

Lemmy wrote:
There is no indication that she ever expected to have to fight Lannister guards before that one scene last episode.

In the books, her walk of shame ousted her from anything resembling power. Her cousin kevin had come in as the hand? Regent? And was her primary obstacle against doing anything.

Quote:
Or that she has the habit of sending Gregorstein around to kill whoever bad-mouthes her (which should be many, many people at this point).

So this can't be the scene that establishes that she does do that because....?

Quote:
Who knows... Maybe she sent Gregorstein to buy OJ and he heard the speech on his way back from the grocery store. Why would he wait 'til the guys was alone, though? He didn't care about subtlety in life, why would he care as a zombie?

Better at following orders now?

Quote:
Let's be honest here... The scene just wasn't very well thought. The writers wanted san excuse to show off Gregorstein's strength and didn't bother to come up with anything too elaborate.

If thats what it is i'm fine with it. I laughed for a whole minute at it.

It could also hint at something to come (remember many plots aren't just inching ahead of the books they're shooting past it)

It could also show that cersei hasn't changed a bit despite her humiliation... if anything it went and made her worse.

Shadow Lodge

Lemmy wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Cersei sending him out with the orders to kill anyone speaking ill of me or my son makes absolutely perfect sense for her character.
It makes more sense for her to keep him around at all times. Specially after what she's been through.

She has a hundred lanister guards for that. She only needs Gregorstein if she needs to fight those guards.

Shadow Lodge ****

Mike Lindner wrote:


You are wrong. Very early in the thread the idea of mandatory reimbursement was put forward.

Someone else went and strawmanned it does not make it any less of a strawman.

Shadow Lodge ****

UndeadMitch wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Eyes a pair of babau

*opens trenchcoat*

Psst.. wana buy an oil of daylight NOW?"

Heh, against the things with multiple uses of dispel magic? I think not.

If everyone delays they won't get any uses of dispel magic...

Shadow Lodge ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:

The funniest part of this is that everyone is right. All the suggested problems posited about the "other guy's" proposal is exactly what is going to happen. Not necessarily widespread, but this campaign is world-wide. There is a huge swathe of player variations. Would an optional rule become mandatory? In some areas and with some players, yes. Would it improve play? Yes, in some areas. Would some of the more extreme and arguably "straw-man" arguments come to fruition? Yes.

I don't think anyone is going to be "forced" to buy a scroll of heal to cure the sniffles.

Other than that.. whats the worst case scenario ? Everyone chips in a few gold pieces for the 750 gp oil of daylight? Someone "has" to pay back the 5k for a breath of life instead of the 8k resurrection?

You can have prior arrangements made with your faction. Surely you can have the same arrangements made with your own party?

Shadow Lodge ****

Jayson MF Kip wrote:

The 'option' to cover consumables quickly becomes mandatory by peer pressure and quotations of the 'dont be a jerk' rule.

And somehow that rule only goes in one direction and DOESN"T apply to someone swatting flies with a sledgehammer, without consent.

Shadow Lodge ****

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Eyes a pair of babau

*opens trenchcoat*

Psst.. wana buy an oil of daylight NOW?"

Shadow Lodge ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mike Lindner wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Mike Lindner wrote:
The problem I have with mandatory reimbursement is you can effectively tax other players. Someone goes unconscious. Use a heal scroll (instead of simply stabilizing them). The target has to pay for it even though they had no choice in whether it was used on them.

Is anyone suggesting mandatory reimbursement under ridiculously contrived conditions?

If yes, please quote them.

If not please stop pretending this is a plot to screw people over.

I don't see how this is at all contrived. The player using the scroll may have done so with only the best intentions. That doesn't change the fact they would effectively be spending the other player's gold.

No one is talking about mandatory restitutions.

So taking the idea of mandatory restitutions is at least sending it down the slippery slope. You are further adding a bizarre level of idiocy where you overspend on way more than the other player needs, AND on top of that can't/don't ask for the consent of the other player first. This is three steps removed from what anyone is talking about.

Shadow Lodge ****

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Mike Lindner wrote:
The problem I have with mandatory reimbursement is you can effectively tax other players. Someone goes unconscious. Use a heal scroll (instead of simply stabilizing them). The target has to pay for it even though they had no choice in whether it was used on them.

Is anyone suggesting mandatory reimbursement under ridiculously contrived conditions?

If yes, please quote them.

If not please stop pretending this is a plot to screw people over.

Shadow Lodge

Cersei sending him out with the orders to kill anyone speaking ill of me or my son makes absolutely perfect sense for her character.

Shadow Lodge ****

I think you can take them as A valid ruling but not THE valid ruling?

Shadow Lodge ****

Someone died. Everyone chip in a grand. Makes math easier

Shadow Lodge ****

CN_Minus wrote:


The only examples I can give are anecdotal, but most conventions I go to have people who refuse to heal those who lack a wand.

Including the newbies or just the people that should know better?

If the latter i'm really not surprised. At a convention there's no chance/expectation of reciprocity.

Shadow Lodge ****

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Whoaaaaa.

The discussion is "We'd like some ability to split an items cost". "They're going to make splitting the cost mandatory" is somewhere between a slippery slope with rocket boots and an entirely different conversation.

Shadow Lodge ****

3 people marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
nosig wrote:

So... How about when several players want to "chip in" to "buy the replacement item"?

Jo jumps in front of the monster and buys the farm.
Fred sees her going down, steps up and blows 1/2 a set of First Aid Gloves on her - keeping the meat-shield in the game.
Terry and Jackie (for whatever reasons) want to "chip in" on part of the replacement cost...

How the heck do we figure this?

Pretty much the same way we do Jo's ressurection?
Who get's the money? Or are they buying 1/2 a set of First Aid Gloves and giving them to Fred to replace the 1/2 he "spent"... Do we need rules to pay for PARTS of magic items?

Just call it the Michael Jackson clause

Shadow Lodge ****

nosig wrote:

So... How about when several players want to "chip in" to "buy the replacement item"?

Jo jumps in front of the monster and buys the farm.
Fred sees her going down, steps up and blows 1/2 a set of First Aid Gloves on her - keeping the meat-shield in the game.
Terry and Jackie (for whatever reasons) want to "chip in" on part of the replacement cost...

How the heck do we figure this?

Pretty much the same way we do Jo's ressurection?

Shadow Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it would encourage buying more breath of life scrolls if people could chip in for them

Shadow Lodge

Temeraire should be good if they can make that into a movie/series. Napoleonic war, with dragons!

Shadow Lodge

In the books, yes. Clearly not in the TV series, as there is no weirwood in Winterfell's courtyard.

There's no weirwood Trunk.

Bet you the roots go that far.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

You can drink poison, not freeze to death in your skivies in canada, and give birth to a shadow demon thing that can assassinate people. Can you raise the dead seems like a reasonable question.

Shadow Lodge

Question; When a Kitsune is in Human form, (or fox shape if that feat is taken), do they lose their Agile racial trait?

Unknown/Dms call. It could be from their body shape, the balance of their tail, or a cultural penchant for kung fu fighting.

As a practical matter, i wouldn't bother recalculating it.

Quote:
EDIT: What about their "Kitsune Magic(EX/Sp)"?

I'm leaning very heavily towards that one not being form dependent. Magic is more inherent in something being than its shape.

Quote:
EDIT2: Bonus Question: Is a Kitsune in human form immune to size-changing and involuntary polymorph spells?

Probably. Keep in mind though that baleful polymorph (and anything based on it) removes all the polymorph effects and then goes to town. After that, a kitsune that knows they're a kitsune can take a standard action to resume their form (as a shapechanger) A kitsune that misses the will save probably doesn't have the knowledge that they can do that.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
archmagi1 wrote:
I think the reason they put Davos as the plot mover is that he's a pretty popular character who, while being morally gray, is very genuine and relateable. He is an everyman amongst gods and kings and that resonates a bit.

Oh come on, in this setting he qualifies as lawful good.

Shadow Lodge ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Heathwool wrote:
So I definitely shouldn't be a pack master Hunter in Society right?

Thats why its banhammered

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Huh. So the Karstarks have wanted to be wardens in the north/kings in the north for 500 years, and you're relying on them to keep you in power...

I just hope the doggie lives. He was cute.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

On a food cart :)

1 to 50 of 25,356 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.